Works

SECT. I. Zarephath. Obad. verse. 20. where.

SAREPTA in the Story of Elijah, 1 King. XVII. is written in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tzarephath, and with the same Letters in Obad verse. 20. and therefore it may be reasonably inquired whether it be one and the same place. Indeed, there would hardly be any doubt in it, but that the Jews ordinarily by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understand France, and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sepharad, which by the Prophet is used in the very same verse, Spain. The words of the Prophet are very variously rendered, and yet in all that variety, nothing hinders but that Zarephath there may be understood of the Zarephath mentioned in the Kings. For, whether the passage concern the Captivity's being detained in Zarephath, or the Captivity's possessing the Land to Zarephath (for in that variety chiefly, the words are expounded) in either sense, it may well enough be, that the Sarepta that belongs to Zidon, may be the scene of the affair. As to the former, if we compare but that passage concerning Tyre, the Sister of Sidon, Amos I. 9. and withal the potency and dominion of the Sidonians, it may not be improbable but that the Israelites might be captived in Sarepta of Sidon. And as to the latter, whereas in the verse. immediately before, the discourse is of the possession of the Mount of Esau, of the Fields of Ephraim, Samaria, and Gilead, and then there is mention of possessing the Land of Canaan, as far as Zarephath; who would seek Zarephath in France, and not in some neighbouring place, according to all the rest of the places their named, which were all very near. Let me add moreover, that whereas there is mention of possessing the Land of the Canaanites even unto Zarephath, the Greek Interpreters will tell you who those Canaanites were, that are distinguished from the rest of the Nations in the Land of Canaan, viz. the Phoenicians, Josh. V. 1. And by the Kings of the Hittites mentioned 1 Kings X. 29. and 2 Kings VII. 6. I would likewise suppose the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phoenician Kings.

SECT. II. SEPHARAD. Where.

THE Italian Interpreter for Sepharad, retains Zarphath: For so he, Et i transferiti de questo esercito de figlioli de Israel, che sono de Chenahanei, in fino a Zarphath, & i transferiti di Jerusalem, che Sono in Zarphath, &c. Whether too warily, or too unwarily he hath thus done, let him look to that himself.

The Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephratha, with which the Arabian Interpreter agrees. But the Syriac with the Targumist, Spain. The vulgar, Bosphorus, confusedly, besides that it makes the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a radical Letter: And yet Nobilius hath this passage. St. Jerome tells us, the other Interpreters agreed with the Hebrew word Sepharad, which he rendered Bosphorus. If he means that all agreed in acknowledging the word Sepharad, he tells us no news: but who agreed with his word Bosphorus?

I must confess, Sepharad is not a place so obvious as Zarephath, nor can anything be offered in it, but conjecture only: and if I might be allowed my guess; I would look for Sepharad in Edom, rather than in Spain: and that because Obadiah prophesies against the Edomites, properly so called. Whereas therefore he tells us, That the Captivity of Israel in Sarepta of the Phoenicians shall possess the Land of the Canaanities: It is probable he means by the Captivity in Sepharad, those Captives in Edom, who shall possess the Cities of the South. The Zarphathani, or Sareptani were of the North, the Sepharadeni of the South: amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Whom you may rightly call the Troglodyte Arabs, saith Strabo, That is, probably the Horims in Mount Seir; for I suspect Horim, by ill use, might form itself into Eremb.

If we consider that the Jews do generally by Edom, understand the Roman Empire, and indeed all the Christian Nations in the West, we shall easily perceive why they fix these places Zarephath, and Sepharad so far from Palestine. For Obadiah prophesying against the Edomites, properly so called, the Jews change the scene and persons, according to the vulgar construction of Edom, which they had received amongst themselves.

SECT. III. The situation of Sarepta.

INDE [à Tyro] Euhydra, ac Sarepta, & Ornithon oppida▪ Et Sidon artifex vitri • Thebarumque Baeotiarum parens. From Tyre is Euhydra, and Sarepta, and Ornithon, certain Towns so called: Sidon where Glass is made, and from whence sprung the Beotian Thebes.

Borchard. A Tyro ad tres leucas admodum breves, &c. About three very short leagues from Tyre, the River Eleutherus runs into the Sea; About two leagues from that River is Sarepta: About two leagues from Sarepta is Sidon. Sarepta at this time doth not consist of above eight Houses, though the ruins do still say it was once a brave Town.

Some would have Zarephath signify as much as a place of melting; from boiling and melting metals, but especially Glass.

Between Acon and Tyre there is a shore all spread over with little hillocks of sand; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that bears a glassey sand: the Glass indeed is not cast here, but being carried to Sidon, there it is made fusile, &c.

SECT. I. Concerning Naim near Tabor, shewn to strangers.

IN the Alexandrian Copy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ijon is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nain, 1 Kings XV. 20. In the Roman, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain. So Hazar-Enan Numb. XXXIV. 9. in the Roman Copy is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arsenain, in the Alexandrian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asernain; neither of them agrees with our Nain. For it is very absurd to conceive that our Savior ever was at Hazar-Enan the utmost borders of the Land toward Syria; nor can we suppose him in Ijon, that seeming to be according to the order of the places as they are ranked in the Text above quoted, either beyond Dan, or in the extremist borders of the Land on that side.

As to our Nain, Borchard saith thus, A Nazareth duabus leucis, &c. Two leagues from Nazareth, not much above one from Mount Tabor, Southward is Mount Hermon the less, on the North side of which is the City Nain; at whose Gates Jesus recovered a Widows Son from death, as we read, Luke VII. So also Breidenbach: So some Tables as to the situation of Hermon near Tabor, and the situation of Naim near Hermon.

I am well enough satisfied that they should place Naim in the Tribe of Issachar, if there be no mistake among them as to Mount Tabor. For whereas Tabor is indeed the very utmost border of Issachar, Northward, Jos. XIX. 22. It must needs be that what is beyond that, Southward, a league or two, should be reckoned within that Tribe. But I much suspect the Tabor mentioned by them, and that which is now shewn to Travelers, is not the true Tabor: nor do I much question but that Hermon of which they talk, is made out of a mistake, and misconstruction of Psal. LXXXIX. 12. Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy Name. My scruple as to Mount Tabor, ariseth hence; because that Tabor which is shewn to strangers, as our Country-man Biddulph, and another acquaintance of mine own, who were on the top of it, do describe it, does not at all agree with the description Josephus gives us of the true Mount Tabor. Our Countryman tells us, It is an hill not very steep, nor very high, nor very large; but a round beautiful hill, &c. On the contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mount Tabor is in height thirty furlongs, very difficult of ascent on the North-side; the top is a great plain of about six and twenty furlongs.

The Persian Interpreter instead of Nain hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nabelis, that is, Neapolis, which is also Sychem: but for what reason I know not. Nor do I suppose that it was conceived by any one Expositor, that the Widow's Son whom Christ raised from death, was a Samaritan; he was indeed upon the borders of Samaria, but at a great distance from Sychar.

SECT. II. Concerning the Nain in Josephus and the Rabbins.

THE Darshanim (Expositors) upon Beresh. rabb. speak of a certain place called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naim, upon this occasion. Issachar is a bony (or strong) Ass, [Gen. XLIX. 14.] It is spoken of Issachar's Country. For as an Ass is low before and behind, and high in the middle; so is it in the Tribe of Issachar; it is a Valley here and a Valley there, and hilly otherwhere; it couches between two borders. These are the two valleys, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Valley of Pislan, and the Valley of Jezreel. And he saw that rest was good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is Tinaam: And the Land, that it was pleasant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is Naim.

We have here by the way a taste of those allegorical and far-fetched ways of expounding the Scriptures, wherein these egregious Commentators do so much please and value themselves. However, we are thus sar beholding to them, that they have given us to understand, that there was a Naim in the Tribe of Issachar, called so from the pleasantness of its situation (as indeed Tinaam bears the same derivation) which we have some reason to judge was the same Naim with ours in the Evangelist, and that in Josephus.

It was usual for the Galileans, coming up to the holy City to the Feasts, to take their journey through the Samaritans Country, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And then their way lay through a Town called Nais. (I confess the Greek expressions are something perplexed; but it is no great matter.) It happened that some of the Samaritans and inhabitants of the great plain, fought with them, and killed a great number.

You may think he repeats the very same Story, though differing in some circumstances . There was another fight betwixt the Galileans and Samaritans; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . • or hard by a Town called Gema situated in the great plain of Samaria, multitudes of Jews going up to the Feast there was a certain Galilean slain.

It is not much worth our examining whether they be one and the same story with the other, or whether this Gema be the same Town with Nain; but this we may gather hence, that Nain was in the extreme borders of Issachar, touching upon the Samaritan Country, and Gema in the extreme borders of Samaria that were next adjoining to Issachar. And when the Galileans went down from Nain, a Town in Issachar, into the great plain of Samaria, the first Town in their way is Gema, there the enemy meets and fights them: if at least Gema and Nain be not one and the same place.

SECT. III. ENGANNIM.

THere is a great inclination in me to believe, that Naim is the same with Engannim, mentioned Josh. XIX. 21. and Chap. XXI. 29. For, I. Both of them were within the Tribe of Issachar; Engannim, as the H. Scriptures, and Naim as the Jewish Doctors tell us; and why we should not take their word in such a thing as this, I know no reason. II. Both of them signify pleasantness: Naim in the very Etymon implies pleasantness: and Engannim, a Fountain and Gardens. III. The Engannim mentioned Jos. XXI. 29. in 1 Chron. VI. 73. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Anem. Now if you transpose the Letters (as is done in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) it will be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naim. IV. Let me add, That Engannim (if there be any credit to those guides, that commonly show these places to Travelers) lies directly in the way, going from Galilee to Jerusalem; and so, as is very evident, was our Naim. Of this place, thus our Country-man Biddulph: a Town, commonly called Jenine, of old Engannim: exceedingly pleasant, abounding with waters and gardens, and delightsome walks.

Why the LXX should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Engannim by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fountain of letters, Jos. XXI. 29. let those that are more learned search out. It is true the Children of Issachar are celebrated for their skill in computing the times, 1 Chron. XII. 32. where the Targumist; They were skilled in calculating the beginnings of the Years, the Calends of the Months, and the intercalation both of Years and Months 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sophists [skillful] in new Moons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Astrologers [conversant] about Planets and Stars, &c.

If we would include the Levites that dwelt amongst the Tribe of Issachar, under the general name of Issachar, then might Engannim (being a Levitical City) be an Academy for that kind of Mathematical learning; but in both we are very uncertain. Nor is it less obscure that the same Greek Interpreter hath instead of Remeth, Engannim, Enhaddah, and Bethpazes rendered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ Remmas, and Jeon, and Tomman, and Aemerec, and Bersaphes, Jos. XIX. 21.

SECT. I. Several things about its name and place.

WE have spoken something already concerning Emmaus in our Choragraphical Century, Chap. 45. let us add some few things in this place.

I. It was distant from Jerusalem, as appears both from our Evangelist, and Josephus , about threescore furlongs. By account of common miles, Seven and a half: Eight of the Jewish. What copy therefore of Josephus must the Learned Beza have by him, who thus speaks upon the place? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sixty, so the Syriac hath it and indeed all copies: so that here is either a mistake in the number, or else it is ill written in Josephus ; thirty furlongs. Our Josephus plainly hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ A Town called Emmaus distant from Jerusalem threescore furlongs.

II. The Syriac, Arabic, and Persia Interpreters write the name in the Evangelist with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the beginning; the Syriac and Persian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So also the Syriac, in 1 Macc. III. 40. But the Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the beginning. Indeed in Talm. Bab. in Erachim, fol. 10. 1. it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but in the Misnaioth printed by themselves it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So it is in Succah. fol. 51. 5.

III. Josephus commonly renders Chammoth of Tiberias (a place so called from the HotBaths ) by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ammaus; but whether our Emmaus ought to have this derivation is a question. There were indeed at Emmaus noted waters; but we can hardly suppose they were warm, if we consider but the usual writing of the word amongst the Talmudists.

Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai had five Disciples, who while he lived sat always with him, but when he died they retired to Jafne. But R. Eliezer ben Erech betook himself to his Wife 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at Emmaus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a place of pleasant waters, and pleasant dwelling. There is something in this little Story that might not be unworthy our enquiry, as to the Scholastical History of the Jews; viz, where Rabban Johanan should make his abode, if not in Jabneh? for that is the place they commonly allot to him: But this is not a place to dispute of such matters.

Pervenerunt Nicopolim, &c. They came to Nicopolis: Now Nicopolis is a City in Palestine. This the Book of the Gospel calls Emmaus; while it was yet a Village. There through the plenty of good waters, and all necessary provisions, they enjoyed a good comfortable night.

This Author, upon this occasion, quotes some passages out of Sozomen, in the sixth Book of the Tripartite History, which are in his fifth Book, Chap. 20. wherein the waters at Emmaus are celebrated not only for their plenty, but as they were wonderfully wholesome and medicinal. For thus he: There is a City in Palestine which now hath the name of Nicopolis, of which the Holy Gospel makes mention, as of a Village (for then it was so) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and calls it Emma. The Romans, having sacked Jerusalem, and gained an entire victory over the Jews, from the event of that War, gave this Town the name of Nicopolis. Before the City near the road (where our Savior after he had arisen from the dead, walking with Cleophas, made as if he was hastening to another Town) there is a certain Medicinal Spring, wherein not only men that are sick, being washed, are cured, but other sort of Animals also, of whatsoever diseases they are afflicted with. The report is, that Christ as he was once going that way with his Disciples, turned aside to that fountain, and having washed his feet in it, the waters have ever since retained an healing quality and virtue in them.

We leave the credit of the Story to the relater of it: only one thing we may observe from the hint he gives us, that it is no wonder if in the Evangelists time, Emmaus was but a little Village, whenas not long before it had been burnt and destroyed by Varus . Nor is it more strange that its ancient name Emmaus, should change into Nicopolis, when the place itself, became a Roman Colony .

SECT. II. Its situation.

PTOLOMEY tells us something of its situation by its degrees, saying, Emmaus, 65. 45. 31. 45.

As to the vicinage of Countries or places adjacent; thus the Jerusalem Sheviith : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Beth-horon to Emmaus it is hilly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Emmaus to Lydda it is Champagne, and from Lydda to the Sea is Valley.

If you would hear Ptolomey more largely, thus he writes:

• Jamnia 65. 40. 32. 0.
• Lydda 66. 0. 32. 0.
• Antipatris 66. 20. 32. 0.
• Emmaus 65. 45. 31. 45.
• Jerusalem 66. 0. 31. 40.

Although this account of the distance betwixt Jerusalem and Emmaus, doth not very well agree, with what our Evangelist, and Josephus have said; yet may we learn, from the places named along with it, in what quarter of the Heaven it was situated. To all which we may add that of Josephus Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 11. and 1 Maccab. IV. Judas Maccabeus engages with Gorgias near Emmaus: the Gorgians fly, and the Maccabeans pursue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , As far as Gadaron (Gezer) to the plains of Edom, Azotus, and Jamnia.

I therefore recite this passage, that it may appear that Emmaus, lay toward Galilee, although from Jerusalem it inclined also Westward: For whereas, considering the latitude of Galilee extending itself from West to East, there must of necessity be several Roads from Jerusalem to this or that part of it: So this through Emmaus was one; through Beth Horon another; through Antipatris a third; if at least this last did not fall in with that of Emmaus. That passage in Gul. Tyr. makes me think it might; who, describing the Encampings and journeyings of the Croysade Army, tells us, Relictis a dextrâ, &c. Leaving the Maritime Towns, Antipatris and Joppe, on the right, they passed through Eleutheria, and came to Lydda, which is Diospolis. And Cap. 24. From whence, taking guides along with them, persons well skilled in those places, they came to Nicopolis: Which is the same with Emmaus.

From all which, we may reasonably presume that the two Disciples were going to Emmaus, not as to the utmost limit of their journey, but as that lay in their way toward Galilee.

SECT. III. Some Story of it. Also of Timnath and Mount Gilead, Jud. VII. 3.

To what Tribe Emmaus belonged would be something hard to determine, because of the situation of Bethoron, which was in Ephraim, Josh. XVI. But that the Talmudists do clearly enough say it was not in the Samaritan Country.

They were Servants of the Priests, saith R. Meir. But R. Jose saith, They were of the Family of Beth Pegarim, and Beth Zippory, in Emmaus, who had placed their Daughters in Marriage with the Priests.

The discourse is about the Musicians in the Temple, and the dispute is, whether they were Levites, or Israelites, particularly natives of Emmaus, and of those two Families who for their purity were thought worthy to be taken into the affinity and blood of the Priests themselves. And this passage indeed puts it out of all question that Emmaus was not within the Tribe of Ephraim; because it would be ridiculous to suppose that either Samaritan Women should be joined in Marriage with the Priests, or that Samaritan Men should be admitted to play on the Instruments in the Temple. Emmaus therefore must be placed in the Tribe of Benjamin, which, what it was called before, is not easy to guess.

I conceive there is mention made of this place, in Spihra . R. Akibah said; I asked Rabban Gamaliel, and R. Joshua 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the shambles of Emmaus, when they went to receive the Beast to make a Feast for their Son, &c. Now Rabban Gamaliel, and R. Joshua were both of Jafneh; so that by considering the situation of Jafne we may more confidently believe, that they were in the Emmaus we are speaking of. We have the same passage in Maccoth, fol. 14. 1.

It was one of the larger Cities: For so Josephus speaks of it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cassius disfranchised four Cities, the greatest of which was Gophna and Emmaus: and next to these was Lydda and Thamna.

Under the disposition of the Duke of Palestine amongst the rest, was Ala Antana of the Dromedaries of Admatha; where Pancirole notes that Admatha in St. Jerome in his Hebrew places, is called Ammata. This, by the agreeableness of sound may seem to be our Emmaus, unless more probably at this time it bore the name of Nicopolis.

When I take notice that Hammath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Baths of Tiberias, are commonly in the Greek rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and withal, that our Emmaus was much celebrated for famous Waters: I cannot forget the waters of Nephtoa, or the Fountain of Etam, from whence water was conveyed by Pipes into the Temple. This was in the same quarter from Jerusalem with our Emmaus: So that our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may as well be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ammath, a Channel of waters, as well as the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hammath, the warm Baths. But this I leave to the Reader's judgment.

In memory of this place let us record a Story out of Sigeverts Chronicle in the Reigns of Theodosius and Valentinianus. Hoc tempore in castello Judeae Emmaus, &c. At this time in a Garrison in Judea called Emmaus, there was a perfect Child born. From the Navel upward, he was divided, so that he had two Breasts, and two Heads, either of which had their proper senses belonging to them: The one eat when the other did not: the one slept when the other was awake. Sometime they slept both together; they plaid one with another: they both wept, and would strike one another. They lived near two years; and after one had died, the other survived about four days.

If this two headed Child was the issue of a Jew, then might that question be solved, which is propounded, Menacoth, fol. 37. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one should have two heads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on which of the Foreheads should the Phylacteries be bound? No mean scruple indeed. But let us have from the Glossator as considerable a Story: Asmodeus produced from under the pavement before Solomon, a Man with two heads. He Marries a Wife, and begot Children like himself, with two heads, and like his Wife with one. When the Patrimony comes to be divided, he that had two heads requires a double portion; and the cause was brought before Solomon to be decided by him.

As to that Thamna or Timnath which Josephus in the place above quoted makes mention of, it is disputed in Sotah, fol. 17. 1. where Rabh asserts, that there were two Timnaths, one in Judea, and the other that of Samson. We all know of a third of that name, Joshua's Timnath, viz. Timnath-Serah in Mount Ephraim where Joshua was buried, Jos. XXIV. 30. Here give the Rabbins a little play, and let them trifle by transposing the names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Serah and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheres, and from thence ground a fiction that the image of the Sun was fixed upon the Sepulcher of Joshua, in remembrance of the Sun's miraculous standing still by his word. This is like them. Nor indeed is that of a much better mould, which the LXX add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. There they put into the monument with him, the stone-knives, with which he circumcised the Children of Israel in Galgal, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord had commanded them. Were these, think you, in the Hebrew Text once, and have they slipped out since? Do they not rather savor of the Samaritan gloss, or the Jewish tradition?

They recede from the Hebrew Text in the same Story, but something more tolerably when they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the North-side of the Hill Gaash: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From the North-side of the Hill Galaad: where, as far as I am able to judge, they do not paraphrase ill, though they do not render it to the Letter. Let us consider that obscure passage which hath so much vext Interpreters in Jud. VII. 3. Proclaim now in the ears of the people, saying, whosoever is fearful and afraid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let him return early from Mount Gilead. The place where this thing was acted was either in or very near the vale of Jezreel, distant from Mount Gilead beyond Jordan, twenty or thirty miles; and therefore how could these Gideonites depart from Mount Gilead? I am not ignorant what some do allege toward the untying this knot, viz. that it should be taken thus, Whoever be of Mount Gilead let them return. The Targumist to this sense; Whosoever is fearful, let him return, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and let choice be made out of Mount Gilead, i. e. Let the Gileadites be chosen. But whether his meaning was, that the Gileadites should be chosen to remain because they are not afraid; or be chosen to return because they were; I shall not reckon it worth the while to inquire.

But may not Mount Gilead in this place, be understood of the Hill Gaash? It is certain, the situation agrees well enough, and perhaps there is no great difference in the name.

Whence that Mount Gilead beyond Jordan first had its name, is not unknown; namely, from that heap of stones set up by Jacob for a witness of the Covenant betwixt him and Laban, Gen. XXXI.

We read of something not unlike it, set up by Joshua near Shechem, in testimony of the Covenant betwixt the people and God, Jos. XXIV. 26. Now therefore, who can doubt but that Joshua was buried near Shechem? For when that place was particularly bequeathed and set out by Jacob, for his Son Joseph; who of the whole stock and lineage of Joseph could justlier inherit that part of the Country than Joshua?

He was buried on the North-side of the Hill Gaash, in his own ground. Might not that Hill be also called Gilead, upon the account of that Pillar of Witness that was built there a little from Shechem? whence the foot of the Hill, and the Hill itself beginning to rise (if it were Northward, which we suppose, then it) might very well reach not far from that place where this matter of Gideon was transacted. For, whereas the field wherein the Battle was, was within the Tribe of Manasseh, contiguous to Mount Ephraim, and Gideon proclaims that whosoever were afraid should depart from Mount Gilead; we can perhaps think of no proper sense wherein this Mount Gilead can be taken, than that that part of Mount Ephraim was so called from the Pillar of Testimony placed on the South-side of it, when the common name for it was the Hill Gaash.

VERS. I.

WHEREAS it was several years after the Ascension of our Lord, before the four Books of the Holy Gospel were committed to writing, the Apostles, the Seventy Disciples, and other Ministers of the Word in the mean time everywhere dispersing the glad tidings; no wonder if many pious and greedy Auditors had for their own memory sake, and the good of others, noted in their own private Table-books as much as they were capable of carrying from the Sermons and Discourses they so frequently heard. Nor is it more strange if some of these should from their own collections, compile and publish now and then some Commentaries, or short Histories of the passages they had met with. They might take in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things. Which, however they might perform out of very good intentions, and a faithful impartial Pen; yet were these writings far from commencing an infallible Canon, or eternal unalterable rule of the Christian Faith.

It was not in the power of these kind of writers either to select what the Divine Wisdom would have selected for the Holy Canon, or to declare those things in that style, wherein the Holy Spirit would have them declared, to whom he was neither the guide in the action, nor the director of their Pen.

Our Evangelist therefore takes care to weigh such kind of writings, in such a balance, as that it may appear they are neither rejected by him as false or heretical, nor yet received as Divine and Canonical. Not the first, because he tells us they had written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even those very things, which the heavenly Preachers had delivered to them. Not the latter, for to those Writings he opposeth, that he himself was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , One that had perfect understanding of things from above. Of which we shall consider in its proper place.

A kind of phrase not much unlike, what was so familiar amongst the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An orderly Narration: saying, that that was more peculiarly applied by them to the Commemoration of the passover. And yet it is used in a larger sense too, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which you way render, who was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He who set forth in order a declaration.

Let us recollect what the unbelieving Jews think and say of the Actions, Miracles, and Doctrine of Christ, and then we shall find it more agreeable to render this clause, of those things which are most surely believed amongst us, according to what Erasmus, Beza, our own English Translators, and others have rendered it, than with the Vulgar, Quae in nobis completae sunt rerum; of the things which are fulfilled amongst us. They had said, this deceiver seduceth the people, those wonders he did were by the power of magic; Bat we do most surely believe those things which he did and taught.

VERS. II.

IF 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the beginning, have reference to the time wherein Christ published the Gospel upon Earth, as no one need to doubt; then there is little distinction to be made between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eye-witnesses and Ministers; for who from that time had been made a Minister of the Word, that had not been an eye-witness, and seen Christ himself? So that we may easily conjecture who are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, viz. the Apostles, the Seventy Disciples and others that filled up the number of the Hundred and Twenty mentioned Acts 1. 15.

It is said of Mnason, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an old Disciple, Acts XXI. 16. It may be supposed of him that he had been a Disciple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the beginning; that is, from the very time wherein Christ himself published his glad tidings. Those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a good while ago, Acts XV. 7. ought to be understood also in this sense.

VERS. III.

THIS is not indeed ill rendered, having understood these things from the very first: but it may perhaps be better, having attained to an understanding of these things from above, from heaven itself. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from above, signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from heaven, Joh: III. 3. 31. & Chap. XIX. 11. James I. 17. & III. 17, &c. For,

• I. This Version includes the other, for he that hath a perfect understanding of these things from above, or by Divine inspiration, did understand them from the beginning.
• II. Take notice of the distinction that is in Josephus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. He that undertakes to give a true relation of things to others ought himself to know them first very acurately, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having either very diligently observed them himself, or learnt by enquiry from others. We see he opposeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now if St. Luke had writ his History as he had learnt from others (as they wrote whom he instances in Vers. I.) then he had been amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that had learned from others; not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor could he promise more than they might do of whom he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. That many had taken in hand, &c.

There is one guesses, this most excellent Theophilus, to have been an Antiochian; another thinks he may be a Roman: but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel; but I do not think this was he. Josephus mentions him. King Agnippa removing Jesus the Son of Gamaliel from the High-priesthood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He gave it to Matthias the Son of Theophilus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In whose time the Jewish War begun.

VERS. V.

THEY are very little versed in the Holy Scriptures, and less in the Jewish learning▪ that could imagine this Zacharias to have been the High Priest, when he is said to have been but of the eight course, and to have attained this turn of attendance by lot.

As to the institution of the Courses under the first Temple, there is no need to say anything, because everyone hath it before him 1 Chron. XXIV. But under the second Temple there was indeed some difference, not as to the order of their courses, but as to their Heads and Families. Of which thing the Talmudists treat largely, and indeed not altogether from the purpose: Let them comment in my stead.

I. Four 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or courses of Priests went up out of Babylon, Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer. [Ezr. II. 36, &c.] The Prophets who were conversant amongst them at that time, obliged them, that if Johojarib himself should come up from the captivity, that he should not thrust out the course that preceded him, but be, as it were, an appendix to it. The Prophets come forth and cast in four and twenty lots into the Urne; Jedaiah comes and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Harim comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Pashur comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Immer comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. It was agreed amongst them, that if Jehojarib himself should return out of Captivity, he should not exclude the foregoing course, but be, as it were, an Appendix to it. The heads of the courses stand forth, and divide themselves into the Houses of their Fathers, &c. We have the same thing in Bab. Erachin .

If these things be true (and indeed by comparing them with the place in Ezra, before quoted, we may believe they are not much amiss) then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the course of Abiah, both here and Nehem. XII. 17. must not so much be understood of the Stock or Race of Abijah, as, that that course, retained the name of Abijah still: For though there were four and twenty Classes made up of the four only named, yet did they retain both their ancient order, and ancient names too. If therefore Jehojarib, i. e. his course should come up out of Babylon (which however did not happen) it was provided, that he should not disturb the fixed and stated order, by intruding into the first place; but retaining the name of Jehojarib in the first Classe, which consisted now of those of Jedaiah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his course, should be distributed amongst those orders.

II. The Rabbins have a tradition: there were XXIV courses of Priests in the Land of Israel, and XII courses in Jericho. What? XII in Jericho? This would increase the number too much. No, but there were twelve of those in Jericho; that when the time came about, that any Course should go up to Jerusalem, half a Course went up from the Land of Israel, and half a course from Jericho, that by them might come a supply both of water, and food to their brethren that were at Jerusalem.

Gloss. When the time came that any Course should go up to Jerusalem, it divided itself, that half of it should go to Jerusalem, and half of it to Jericho, that they might supply their brethren with water and food, &c.

III. As to the circulation of these courses or turns, we may guess something of it from Gloss. in Midras Coheleth . The Midras itself hath these words. It is R. Chija 's Tradition: It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seven Weeks, shall be complete, i. e. between the Passover and Pentecost, Levite. XXIII. 15. But when are they so? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Joshua and Shecaniah do not interfere.

Where the Gloss from another Author hath it thus: When the Calends of the Month Nisan fall in with the Sabbath, then does the Passover fallin with the Sabbath too; and then let them begin to number from the going out of the Sabbath, and the weeks will be complete according to the days of the Creation. He takes an instance from Joshua and Shecaniah. For there were XXIV Courses, which took their turns alternately every Sabbath: Amongst which Joshua was the ninth, and Shecaniah the tenth. On the first week of the Month Nisan, Jehojarib was the first Course, on the second week, Jedaiah. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the Paschal week, all the Courses attended together. The six weeks to that Sabbath, that immediately preceded the Pentecost, there ministered six Courses, Harim, Seorim, Malchijah, Mijamin, Hakkos, Abiah. In the Sabbath that precedes the Pentecost, Joshua enters, but does not attend till after Pentecost. Behold Joshua and Shechaniah come not between the Passover and Pentecost: for if Joshua was between the Passover and Pentecost, the weeks would not be complete according to the days of the Creation.

He adds a great deal more, but I confess it is beyond my reach: Such is that that immediately follows: They are not complete as the days of the Creation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for we may number from three to three, or from five to five, and so Joshua and Shechaniah will enter [upon their course] before the Pentecost. For behold, the Sabbath before Nisan let it be Jehojarib's turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and let there be seven weeks to the Passover, &c. which must either be some fault in the Printer, or a riddle to me, that I cannot tell what to make of.

However, by the whole series of the discourse it appears, that the beginning of the double circulation of the Courses, was with the twofold beginning of the year, Nisan and Tisri: as also that all the Courses performed their ministry together in the Feasts. As to the Passover indeed here is mention only, but we do not want for authorities to make it out, that as they did so then, so also at the Feasts of Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Let Jehojarib therefore begin the first Course in the beginning of the month Nisan; and (remembering, that all the Courses together performed their Service at the Passover and Pentecost) the Courses will all have run out in half the year; for so (taking in those two Feasts) six and twenty weeks are spent off. Then let Jehojarib begin again with the Month Tisri, and suppose all the Courses jointly ministering at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they will have finished their round (excepting one week over) by the Month Nisan again: which gap of that one week how it is filled up, as also the intercalar Month when it happened, would be too much for us to discuss in this place.

IV. The Course of Bilgah is put out of its just order, and thrown into the last place, if that be true which we meet with in Jerusalem Succah . They say, All that went into the Mountain of the Temple, made their entry on the right hand, and went out at the left; but Biljah went toward the South, because of the apostasy of his Daughter Mary: for she went and married a certain Soldier of the Kingdom of the Grecians. He came and struck the top of the Altar, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Wolf, Wolf, thou that devourest all the good things of Israel, and yet in a time of straits helpest them not. There are also that say, that the reason why this was thus ordered, was because Bilgah's Course was once neglected, when it came about to them to have gone up to have performed their ministry: Bilgah therefore was always amongst those that went out, as Isbab was amongst those that came in; having cast that Course out of their order.

V. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For every Course, there was a Stationary Assembly of Priests, Levites, and Israelites at Jerusalem. When the time came wherein the Course must go up, the Priests and the Levites went up to Jerusalem; but the Israelites that were within that Course, all met within their own Cities, and read the History of the Creation, Gen. I. The Stationary men fasting four days in that week; viz. from the second to the fifth.

Gloss. There was a Stationary Assembly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for every Course stated and placed in Jerusalem, who should assist in the Sacrifices of their brethren: besides these that were stated in Jerusalem, there was a Stationary Assembly in every City: All Israel was divided into Twenty four Stations, according to the Twenty four Courses. There was the station of Priests, Levites and Israelites at Jerusalem; the Priests of the Course, went up to Jerusalem to their Service, the Levites to their Singing; and of all the Stations there were some appointed and settled at Jerusalem, that were to assist at the Sacrifices of their Brethren. The rest assembled in their own Cities, poured out Prayers that the Sacrifices of their Brethren might be accepted; Fasting, and bringing forth the Book of the Law on their Fast-day, &c. So the gloss hath it.

The reason of this Institution, as to Stationary Men, is given us in the Mishnah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For how could every man's offering be made, if he himself were not present? Now whereas the daily sacrifice, and some other offerings were made for all Israel, and it was not possible that all Israel should be present, these Stationaries were instituted, who in the stead of all Israel should put their hands upon the daily Sacrifice, and should be present at the other Offerings that were offered for all Israel. And while these were performing this at Jerusalem, there were other Stationaries in every Course, who by Prayers and Fasting in their own Cities, helped forward, as much as they could, the Services of their Brethren that were at Jerusalem.

The Children of Israel lay on their hands, but the Gentiles do not. The Men of Israel lay on their hands, but the Women do not. R. Jose saith, Abba Eliezer said to me, we had once a Calf for a Peace-offering: and bringing it into the Court of the Women, the Women put their hands upon it: not that this belonged to the Women so to do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but that the Womens spirits might be appeased. A remarkable thing.

The Priests throughout all the Courses, grew into a prodigious number, if that be true in Jerusalem Taanith . R. Zeora in the name of Rabh Honnah said, that the least of all the Courses brought forth Eighty five thousand branches of Priests. A thing not to be credited.

In the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Priestess, viz. one born of the lineage of Priests. It was lawful for a Priest to marry a Levitess, or indeed a Daughter of Israel . But it was most commendable of all, to marry one of the Priests line. Hence that Story in Taanith ubi supr. Fouscore pair of Brethren-Priests, took to Wife fourscore pair of Sister-Pristesses in Gophne, all in one night.

There was hardly anything among the Jews, with greater care and caution looked after, than the marrying of their Priests, viz. that the Wives they took, should not by any means stain and defile their Priestly blood: and that all things which were fit for their eating should be hallowed. Hence that usual phrase for an excellent Woman 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She deserves to marry with a Priest.

Josephus speaks much of this care 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That the whole priestly Generation might be preserved pure and unblended.

The Seventy give this name to Aaron's Wife, Exod. VI. 23.

VERS. VI.

SO Numb. XXXVI. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , These are the Commandments and judgments. It would perhaps seem a little too fine and curious, to restrain the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Ceremonial and judicial Laws, though this does not wholly want foundation. It is certain the precepts delivered after the Decalogue, from Exod. XXI. to Chap. XXIV. are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , judgments, or ordinances, Exod. XXI. 1. & XXIV. 3.

The Vulgar can hardly give any good account, why he should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by justifications; much less, the followers of that Translation, why they should from thence fetch an Argument for justification upon observation of the Commands, when the commands and institutions of men, are by foreign Authors called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nay the corrupt customs that had been wickedly taken up have the same word, 1 Sam. II. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The Priests custom with the people was, &c. 2 Kings XVII. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. And walked in the Statutes of the Heathen.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequently rendered by those Interpreters from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which to wave all other instances may abundantly appear from Psalm CXIX. and the very things which the Jews speak of the Hebrew word, obtain also in the Greek.

Perhaps Satan and the Gentiles will question with Israel what this or that Command means, and what should be the reason of it; the answer that ought to be made in this case is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is ordained, it is a Law given by God, and it becomes not thee to cavil.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall observe my statutes. That is, even those which Satan and the Nations of the World do cavil at. Such are those Laws about eating Swines flesh; heterogeneous clothing, the nearest Kinsman's putting off the Shoe, the cleansing of the Leper, and the scape Goat. If perhaps it should be said that these precepts are vain and needless, the Text saith, I am the Lord. I the Lord have ordained these things and it doth not become thee to dispute them. They are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just and equal, deriving their equity from the authority of him that ordained them.

VERS. VIII.

THE heads of the Courses stood forth, and divided themselves into so many Houses of Fathers. In one Course perhaps there were five, six seven, eight, or nine Houses of Fathers: of the Course wherein there were but five Houses of Fathers, there were three of them ministered three days, and two, four days: If six, then five served five days, and one, two days: If seven, then everyone attended their day: If eight, then six waited six days, and two one day: If nine, then five waited five days, and four, the other two.

Take the whole order of their daily attendance from Gloss. in Tamid. Cap. 6. The great Altar, or the Altar of Sacrifice, goes before the lesser, or that of incense. The lesser Altar goes before the pieces of Wood, or the laying on the Wood upon the fire of the great Altar: The laying on the Wood goes before the sweeping the inner Altar, or that of the incense: The sweeping of the inner Altar goes before the snuffing of the Lamps: The snuffing of the Lamps goes before the sprinkling of the blood of the daily Sacrifice: the sprinkling of the blood of the daily Sacrifice goes before the snuffing of the two other Lamps: The snuffing of the two other Lamps goes before the Incense: The Incense goes before the laying on the parts of the Sacrifice upon the Altar: The laying on the parts, goes before the Mincha: The Mincha goes before the meal, or the two loaves of the Chief Priest: The two loaves of the Chief Priest go before the Drink-offering: The Drink-offering before the additional Sacrifices. So Abba Saul. But a little after. The Wise-men say, the blood of the Sacrifice is sprinkled; then the Lamps snuffed; then the Incense; then the snuffing of the two other Lamps: and this is the tradition according to the Wise-men.

VERS. IX.

THE Ruler of the Temple saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come ye and cast your lots, that it may be determined who shall kill the Sacrifice, who sprinkle the blood, who sweep the inner Altar, who cleanse the Candlestick, who carry the parts of the Sacrifice to the ascent of the Altar; the head, the leg, the two shoulders, the tail of the back-bone, the other leg, the breast, the gulet, the two sides, the entrails, the flower, the two loaves, and the wine. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He hath it to whom it happens by lot.

The room Gazith (in which the lots were cast) was in the form of a large Hall: the casting of the lots was on the East-side of it, some Elder sitting on the West. (i. e. Some Elder of the Sanhedrim, that instructed them in the custom and manner of casting the lot.) The Priests stood about in a circle, and the Ruler coming snatched off a Cap from the head of this or that person, and by that they understood where the lot was to begin.

I will not inquire at present, whether this casting of lots was every day, or whether for the whole week, wherein such or such a Course performed its attendance. It seems that at this time the number, whatever it was, for the choice of one to burn Incense, ended in our Zacharias; whose work and business in this Office, let it not be thought tedious to the Reader to take an account of, in these following passages.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

VERS. X.

WHEN the Priest went in unto the Holy place to burn incense, notice was given to all by the sound of a little Bell, that the time of Prayer was now: as hath been already noted.

I. As many as were in the Court where the Altar was, retired from between the Temple and the Altar, and withdrew themselves lower. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They drew off from the space that was between the Porch and the Altar, while the Incense was burning.

R. Jose saith,

II. In the other Courts they were not bound to retire, or change their place; but in all they gave themselves to Prayer, and that in deep silence. The Fathers ordained Prayers in the time of the daily sacrifice. And of what kind soever the prayers were, whether their Phylacterical ones alone, or their Phylacterical in conjunction with others, or others without their Phylacterical, still they uttered them very silently. He that repeats his prayers in that silent manner that he does not hear himself, he does his duty. But R. Jose would have it, that he repeats his prayers so, that the sound of his own voice may reach his own ears. To this deep silence in the time of Incense and Prayers, that passage seems to allude, Revel. VIII. 1, 3.

When the Incense and Prayers were ended, the parts of the Sacrifice were laid upon the Altar, and then the Levites begin their Psalmody, and the Priests their sounding the Trumpet.

VERS. XI.

IT might be a reasonable doubt, whether ever there had appeared an Angel in the Temple; even in the first, when elsewhere, the appearance of Angels was so very familiar; much less in the second when everything of that nature, had so perfectly ceased, till now that the Gospel began to dawn and shine out.

What we find related concerning Simeon the Just, how for those forty years wherein he had served as High Priest, he had seen an Angel clothed in white, coming into the Holy place, on the day of expiation, and going out again: only his last year he saw him come in, but did not see him go out again; which gave him to understand that he was to die that year: We may suppose this invented rather for the honor of the man, than that any such thing happened for the greater solemnity of the day.

It is a tradition. The Table [of the Shew-bread] was on the North-side, distant from the wall two cubits and an half. The Candlestick on the South, distant from the wall two cubits and an half. The Altar [of Incense] placed in the middle, and drawn out a little toward the East.

So that the Angel standing on the right side of the Altar, stood on the North-side: on which side if there were an entrance into the Holy of holies, as R. Chaninah thinks then we may suppose the Angel by a very sudden and unexpected appearance came out from the Holy of holies himself.

VERS. XV.

THAT is, If the Jews may be our Interpreters properly enough, neither new nor old Wine, Numb. VI. 3, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from wine and strong drink. Targum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he shall separate himself from wine new and old. So Deut. XIV. 26.

R. Jose of Galilee saith; why doth the Scripture double it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wine and strong drink? For is not wine strong drink, and strong drink wine? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Wine no doubt, Numb. XXVIII. 7. Thou shalt cause the strong wine to be poured out before the Lord. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Targum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a drink-offering of old wine.

Whiles I a little more narrowly consider that severe interdiction, by which the Nazarite was forbidden, the total use of the Vine, not only that he should not drink of the Wine, but not so much as taste of the Grape, not the pulp nor stone of the Grape, no not the bark of the Vine: I cannot but call to mind,

I. Whether the Vine might not be the Tree in Paradise, that had been forbidden to Adam, by the tasting of which he sinned. The Jewish Doctors positively affirm this without any scruple .

II. Whether that Law about the Nazarites had not some reference to Adam while he was under that prohibition, in the state of innocence. For if the bodily and legal uncleannesses, about which there are such strict precepts, Numb. V. especially the Leprosy the greatest of all uncleannesses, did excellently decipher the state and nature of Sin▪ Might not the Laws about Nazarites which concerned the greatest purities in a most pure Religion, [ Lam. IV. 7.] be something in commemoration of the state of man before his fall?

There was, as the Doctors call it, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wine of command; which they were bound by precept to drink. Such was that wine of the tithes, Deut. XII. 17, 18. that was commanded to be drunk at Jerusalem; and the Cup of Wine to be drunk at the Passover: What must the Nazarite do in this case? If he drink he violates the command of his order: if he do not drink, he breaks the command about tithes, and the Laws of his Fathers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let Elias untie this knot when he comes.

VERS. XVII.

I. THE Baptist is Elias, as our Savior was David, that is, the Antitype, Malachi. IV. 5. Hose. III. 5, &c. It is less wonder that the Jews, from the words of Malachi, should expect the personal coming of Elijah, since there are not a few Christians that would be looking for the same thing: Although they have an Angel in this place interpreting it otherwise, and our blessed Savior elsewhere himself, Matth. XI. 14 This is Elias that was for to came. But they misunderstood the phrase of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; as also were deceived into the mistake by the Greek Version, that Elias must come before the last judgment.

II. It is not said by the Prophet Malachi, behold I will send you Elijah the Tishbite, but Elijah the Prophet; which perhaps might be better rendered, Behold I send you a Prophet Elijah. And I may confidently say, it would not be so wide from the sense and meaning of Malachi, as the Greek Interpreter, who by a prodigious daringness, in favor of the Jewish traditions have rendered it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I send you Elijah the Tishbite.

III. If I mistake not, Elias the Prophet is but twice mentioned (I mean in those very terms) throughout the whole Book of God: once in this place in Malachi: the other in 2 Chron. XXI. 12. And in both those places, I believe it is not meant Elijah the Tishbite in his own person, but someone in the spirit and power of him. That the words in Malachi should be so understood, both the Angel and our Savior teach us; and it seems very proper to be so taken in that place in the Chronicles.

IV. That great prophet that lived in Ahab 's days, is called the Tishbite throughout the whole Story of him, and not the Prophet. Nor is he called the Prophet, Luke IV. 25. (where yet it is said Elisha the Prophet: ) Nor by St. James▪ Chap. V. 17. for the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tishbi, which is his Epithet, sufficiently asserts his Prophetick Dignity, when it denotes no other than a Converter. Whence can we better derive the Etymology? to which indeed the Prophet Malachi seems to have alluded, Behold I send you Elijah the Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he shall turn, &c.

V. But be it so that he might be called Tishbite from the City Toshab, as the Targum and other Rabbins would have it (which yet is very far fetched) that very thing might evince that it is not he himself that is meant by Malachi, but some other, because he does not mention the Tishbite; but a Prophet Elias, that is, a Prophet in the spirit of Elias.

So among the Talmudists, any one skilled in signs and languages is called Mordecai, viz. because he is like him who lived in the days of Ahasuerus. Menacoth, fol. 64. 2. and the Gloss, ibid.

John came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the power of Elias, not that power by which he wrought miracles; [for John wrought none, Joh. X. 41.] but in the power of Elias turning the hearts of men, &c. Elias turned many of the Children of Israel toward the Lord their God, 1 Kings XVIII. So did John, who over and above, turned the hearts of the Fathers toward their Children. Which, what it should mean is something dark and unintelligible. You will hardly allow the Jewish gloss upon this place, who do so greatly mistake about the person, and who will allow nothing of good to be done by the Elias they expect, but within the compass of Israel. But are not the Gentiles to be converted? They in the Prophets dialect are the Children of Zion, of Jerusalem, of the Jewish Church, nothing more frequent. And in this sense are the words of Malachi we are now handling, to be understood. Elias the Baptist, will turn the hearts of the Jews toward the Gentiles and of the Gentiles toward the Jews. This was indeed the great work of the Gospel to bring over the Jew and Gentile into mutual embraces through the acknowledgment of Christ. Which John most happily begun, who came that all men through him might believe, Joh. I. 7. Yea and the Roman Soldiers did believe as well as the Jews, Luke III. 14.

The Greek in Malachi hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The heart of a man toward his neighbor. The words of the Prophet having been varied, the Angel varies too, but to a more proper sense: For the Gentiles were not to be turned to the Jews, as such, or to the Religion of the Jews, but to God, in the wisdom of the just. The Children to the Fathers. The phrase Fathers, according to the Jewish state at that time was of doubtful sound, and had something of danger init; for by that word, generally at that time was meant nothing else but the Fathers of Traditions, to whom, God forbid any should be turned, to those Fathers in the folly of Traditions, but to God in the wisdom of the just.

VERS. XVIII.

IF so old a man, why then was he not sequestered from the service of the Temble by the Law of Superannuation? Numb. IV. 3. & VIII. 24, 25. Hear what the Rabbins say in this case.

VERS. XXI.

THere is something told of this kind of Simeon the just; concerning whom we have made some mention already.

VERS. XXII.

THere is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verse. 62. they made signs. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the deaf and dumb man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he nods to them and they nod to him .

The Talmudists distinguish the judgments given by a dumb man into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the nodding of the head; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the dumb man's making signs.

If any person be dumb, and yet hath his understanding, should they say to him, may we write a bill of divorce to thy wife, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he nod with his head, they make the experiment upon him three times, &c. And a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they do not much rely upon the signs of the deaf and dumb man. For, as it is in the same place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the dumb person, and the deaf and dumb differ. Gloss. The one can hear and not speak, the other can neither hear nor speak.

Amongst the Doctors the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the deaf and dumb person, is commonly looked upon as one made so by some fit of Palsy or Apoplexy, by which the intellectuals are generally affected; whence the deaf and dumb are, according to the traditional Canons, deprived of several offices and privileges, of which others are capable.

This case therefore of Zacharias might have occasioned a considerable question whether he ought not to have been sequestered from his ministry, and deprived of all the privileges of his Priesthood, because he had been struck deaf and dumb, but that it happened to him in so signal and extraordinary a way.

VERS. XXIV.

SHE hid herself five Months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me, in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

She was big with child, it is plain, because God had looked on her and taken away her reproach among men. She hid herself, because the Lord had dealt so with her, till he had taken away her reproach: giving her so remarkable a Son, one who was to be so strict a Nazarite, and so famous a Prophet. Lest therefore she should any way defile herself by going up and down, and thereby contract any uncleanness upon the Nazarite in her womb, she withdraws and sequesters herself, from all common conversation. Consult Judge. XIII. 4.

There were several amongst the Jews, that were wont to take upon them the Sect of the Nazarites by their own voluntary vow. [Three hundred at once in the days of Janneus the King, came together to Simeon ben Shetah. ] But there were but two only set apart by divine appointment, Sampson and the Baptist. Whom the same divine appointment designing to preserve untouched from all kind of pollution even in their Mothers Wombs, directed that the Mothers themselves should keep themselves as distant as might be from all manner of defilement whatsoever. Elizabeth obeys, and for the whole time wherein she bore the Child within her, she hid herself, for her more effectual avoiding all kind of uncleannesses; although it is true we have the mention but of five months, by reason of the Story of the sixth month which was to be immediately related, Vers. 26.

There is mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a big bellyed Woman hiding herself for another reason .

VERS. XXVI.

R. Simeon ben Lachish saith, The names of Angels went up by the hand of Israel out of Babylon. For before, it is said, Then flew one of the Seraphims unto me; the Seraphims stood before him, [Isai. VI.] but afterward, the man Gabriel, [Dan. IX. 21.] and Michael your Prince, [Dan. X. 21.

The Angel calls Zacharias back to Dan. IX. where the prediction concerning the coming of the Messiah, was foretold by Gabriel.

VERS. XXIX.

I. IT was very rare and unusual for men to salute any Women. At least if that be true in Kiddushin Rabh Judah the President of the Academy of Pombeditha, went to Rabh Nachman Rector of the Academy of Neharde, and after some talk amongst themselves, saith Rabh Nachman, let my Daughter Doneg bring some drink, that we may drink together. Saith the other, Samuel saith, we must not use the ministry of a Woman: But this is a little Girl, saith Nachman. The other answers, but Samuel saith, we ought not to use the ministry of any Woman at all. Wilt thou please saith Nachman, to salute Lelith my Wife? But saith he, Samuel saith, the voice of a Woman is filthy nakedness. But saith Nachman, thou mayest salute her by a messenger. To whom the other, Samuel saith, they do not salute any Woman. Thou mayest salute her, saith Nachman, by a proxie, her Husband. But Samuel saith, saith he again, they do not salute a Woman at all.

II. It was still much more rare and unusual to give such a kind of Salutation as this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hail thou that art highly favored 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By which title Gabriel had saluted Daniel of old: with this exception, that it was terror enough so much as to see an Angel.

VERS. XXXII.

THAT is, he shall be called the Messiah: for Messiah, and the Son of God, are convertible terms. Whether the Angel expressed it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is uncertain. It is certain that both these words were very much in use in that Nation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very commonly in use in the Holy Scriptures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more frequently in Talmudic Authors. As to the former, we may take notice of that passage in Rosh Hashanah .

The Kingdom of the Greeks made a severe decree, that the name of God should not so much as be mentioned amongst the Jews. But when the Kingdom of the Asmoneans prevailed and overcame them, they decreed, that they should mention the name of God even in their writings of contracts: for so they wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the year N. or N. of Johanan the High Priest of the High God.

But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is much more in use amongst the Talmudists.

VERS. XXXV.

I. THIS Verse is the Angel's gloss upon that famed Prophecy, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth. The veracity of which, Mary not questioning, believing further that she herself was that Virgin designed, and yet being utterly ignorant of the manner how so great a thing should be brought about, she only asks, How shall this be, &c? Doubtless she took the Prophecy in its proper sense, as speaking of a Virgin untouched. She knew nothing then, nor probably any part of the Nation at that time so much as once thought of that sense, by which the Jews have now for a great while disguised that place and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

II. Give me leave for their sakes in whose hands the book is not, to transcribe some few things out of that noble Author Morney , which he quotes concerning this grand mystery from the Jews themselves.

Truth shall spring out of the earth. R. Jotten, saith he, notes upon this place, That it is not said truth shall be born, but shall spring out; because the Generation and Nativity of the Messiah, is not to be as other creatures in the world, but shall be begot without Carnal Copulation, and therefore no one hath mentioned his Father, as who must be hid from the knowledge of men, till himself shall come and reveal him. And upon Genes. Ye have said, saith the Lord, we are Orphans, bereaved of our Father; such an one shall your redeemer be whom I shall give you. So upon Zacharias, Behold my servant whose name is of the branch: And out of Psal. CX. Thou art a Priest after the order of Melchizedek: He, saith R. Berachiah, delivers the same things. And R. Simeon Ben Jochai upon Genes. more plainly, viz. That the Spirit, by the impulse of a mighty power, shall come forth of the Womb though shut up, that will become a mighty Prince, the King Messiah. So he.

VERS. XXXVI.

THE Angel teaches to what purpose it was, that Women either barren before, or considerably stricken in years, should be enabled to conceive and bring forth, viz. to make way for the easier belief of the Conception of a Virgin. If they either beside or beyond nature conceive a Child, this may be some ground of belief that a Virgin, contrary to Nature, may do so too. So Abraham by Faith saw Christ's day, as born of a pure Virgin, in the birth of his own Son Isaac of his old and barren Wife Sarah.

VERS. XXXIX.

THAT is, to Hebron, Jos. XXI. 11. For though it is true indeed, the Priests after the return from Babylon, were not all disposed and placed in all those very same dwellings they had possessed before the Captivity; yet is it probable that Zacharias, who was of the seed of Aaron, being here said to dwell in the hill Country of Judah, might have his House in Hebron, which is more peculiarly said to be the City of Aaron 's offspring.

VERS. XLI.

SO the Seventy, Gen. XXV. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Children leaped in her womb. Psal. CXIV. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Mountains skipped. That which is added by Elizabeth, Vers. 44. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ The babe leaped in the womb for joy, signifies the manner of the thing not the cause: q. d. it leaped with vehement exultation. For John while he was an Embryo in the Womb, knew no more what was then done, than Jacob and Esau when they were in Rebecca 's Womb, knew what was determined concerning them.

At the Red Sea, even the infants sung in the wombs of their Mothers, as it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. LXVIII. where the Targum to the same sense, Exalt the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye infants in the bowels of your Mothers, of the seed of Israel. Let them enjoy their Hyperboles.

Questionless Elizabeth had learnt from her Husband, that the Child she went with, was designed as the fore-runner of the Messiah, but she did not yet know, of what sort of Woman the Messiah must be born, till this leaping of the infant in her womb became some token to her.

VERS. LVI.

A Space of time very well known amongst the Doctors, defined by them to know whether a Woman be with Child or no. Which I have already observed upon Matth. I.

VERS. LIX.

I. THE Circumciser said , Blessed be the Lord our God, who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath given us the Law of Circumcision. The Father of the infant said who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter the Child into the Covenant of Abraham our Father. But where was Zacharias 's tongue for this service?

II. God at the same time instituted Circumcision, and changed the names of Abraham and Sarah: hence the custom of giving names to their Children at the time of their Circumcision.

III. Amongst the several accounts why this or that name was given to the Sons, this was one that chiefly obtained, viz. for the honor of some person whom they esteemed they gave the Child his name. Which seems to have guided them in this case here when Zacharias himself being dumb, could not make his mind known to them. Mahli the Son of Mushi, hath the name of Mahli given him, who was his Uncle, the Brother of Mushi his Father, 1 Chron. XXIII. 21, 23.

R. Nathan said, I once went to the Islands of the Sea, and there came to me a Woman, whose first born had died by Circumcision, so also her second Son. She brought the third to me. I bad her wait a little till the blood might asswage. She waited a little, and then Circumcised him, and he lived: They called him therefore by my name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nathan of Babylon. See also Jerusalem Jevamoth .

There was a certain Family at Jerusalem, that were wont to die about the eighteenth year of their age: They made the matter known to R. Johanan ben Zacchai, who said, perhaps you are of Eli's Lineage, concerning whom it is said, The increase of thine House shall die in the flower of their age. Go ye and be diligent in the study of the Law, and ye shall live. They went and gave diligent heed to the Law, and lived. They called themselves therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Family of Johanan, after his name.

It is disputed in the same Tract , whether the Son begot by a Brother's raising up seed to his Brother, should not be called after the name of him that is deceased; for instance, if one dies without a Son, and his name be Joseph, or Johanan, whether the Son that is born to this man's Brother, taking his Brother's Widow to Wife, should not have the name after him that first had her, and be called Joseph, or Johanan. Otherwise, indeed it was very seldom that the Son bore the name of the Father, as is evident both in the Holy Scriptures, and the Rabinical Writers. It cannot be denied but that sometimes this was done, but so very rarely, that we may easily believe the reason why the Friends of Zacharias would have given the Child his own name, was merely, either because they could by no means learn, what he himself designed to call him; or else in honor to him, however he lay under that divine stroke at present, as to be both deaf and dumb.

VERS. LXXVIII.

I Would readily have rendered it the branch from on high, but for what follows, to give light, &c.

I. It is known and observed by all that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by the Seventy rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ Jerem. XXIII. 5. Zech. III. 8. & VI. 12. Now everyone knows, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a branch: And as to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

II. There is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ezek. XVI. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ As the bud (or spring) of the the field, Ibid. cap. XVII. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ It shall wither in the clod where it grows.

And well may Christ indeed in this sense be said to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the branch or spring from on high, in opposition to that branch from below, by which mankind was undone, viz. the forbidden Tree in Paradise.

VERS. LXXX.

WHether John was an Eremite in the sense as it is now commonly taken, we may inquire and judge by these two things: I. Whether there was ever any Eremite in this sense among the Jews. II. Whe he absented himself from the Synagogues, from the Feasts at Jerusalem, and to this may be added, whether he retired and withdrew himself from the society of mankind: If he absented from the Synagogues, he must have been accounted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a wicked neighbor . If from the Feasts, he transgressed the command, Exod. XXIII. 17. If from the society of mankind; what agreeableness was there in this? It seems very incongruous, that he that was born for this end, to turn the disobedient, &c. should withdraw himself from all society and converse with them. Nothing would persuade me sooner that John was indeed an anchoret, than that which he himself saith, that he did not know Jesus, Joh. 1. 31. whereas he was so very near akin to him. One might think, surely he must have lain hid in some Den or Cave of the Earth, when for the space of almost thirty years wherein he had lived, he had had no society with Jesus, so near a kinsman of his, nay not so much as in the least to know him. But if this were so, how came he to know, and so humbly refuse him when he offered himself to be baptized by him? Matth. III. 14. And this, before he was instructed who he was by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him, Joh. I. 33.

From this question may arise two more.

I. Whether John appeared or acted under the notion of a Prophet, before his entrance into the thirteenth year of his age? I am apt to think he did not, and hence I suppose it is said concerning him, that he was in the deserts, that is, he was amongst the Rusticks and common rank of Men, as a Man of no note or quality himself, till he made himself public under the notion and authority of a Prophet.

II. Whether he might not well know his Kinsman Jesus in all this time, and admire his incomparable sanctity, and yet be ignorant that he was the Messiah? Yea and when he modestly repulsed him from his Baptism, was it, that he acknowledged him for the Messiah? (which agrees not with Joh. I. 33.) or, not rather, that by reason of his admirable holiness, he saw that he was above him?

John was unquestionably 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Priest by birth, and being arrived at the thirtieth year of his age, according to the custom of that Nation, he was after examination of the great Council, to have been admitted into the Priestly Office, but that God had commissioned him another way.

In the room Gazith the great Council of Israel sat, and judged concerning the Priesthood. The Priest in whom any blemish was found, being clothed, and veiled in black, went out and was dismissed: but if he had no blemish, he was clothed and veiled in white, and going in ministered and gave his attendance with the rest of the Priests his Brethren. And they made a gaudy day, when there were no blemish found in the Seed of Aaron the Priest.

VERS. I.

THE New Testament mentions nothing of the Roman Government, but as now reduced under a Monarchical form. When that head which had been mortally wounded, in the expulsion of the Tarquins, was healed and restored again in the Caesars, Rev. XIII 3. All the world wondered, saith St. John, and well they might, to see Monarchy, that had for so many hundred years been antiquated and quite dead, should now flourish again more vigorously and splendidly than ever.

But whence the Epocha or beginning of this Government should take its date is something difficult to determine. The foundations of it, as they were laid by Julius Caesar, so did they seem overturned, and erased again in the death he met with in the Senatehouse. It was again restored, and indeed perfected by Augustus; but to what year of Augustus should we reckon it? I would lay it in his one and thirtieth, the very year wherein our Savior was born. Of this year Dion Cassius lib. 55. speaks thus.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The third decennium (or term of ten years) having now run out, and a fourth beginning, he being forced to it, undertook the Government. Observe the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Then was Augustus constrained, or compelled to take the Empire upon him. The Senate, the people, and as it should seem, the whole Republic, with one consent, submitting themselves entirely to a Monarchical form of Government, did even constrain the Emperor Augustus (who for some time stiffly refused it) to take the reins into his hands.

I am not ignorant that the computation of Augustus his Reign, might reasonably enough commence from his Battle and victory▪ at Actium; nor do the Gemarists count amiss, when they tell us that the Roman Empire took its beginning in the days of Cleopatra. And you may if you please call that a Monarchical Government, in opposition to the Triumvirate, which at that battle breathed its last. But that certainly, was the pure and absolute Monarchy, which the Senate and the Common-wealth did agree and consent together to set up.

The Vulgar, and other Latin Copies read, ut describeretur, should be described, which, according to the letter might be understood of the setting out the whole bounds of the Empire, according to its various and distinct Provinces. Only that Aethicus tells us this had been done before; whose words since they concern so great and noble a Monument of antiquity, may not prove tedious to the Reader, to be transcribed in this place.

Julius Caesar Bissextilis rationis inventor, &c. Julius Caesar the first inventer of the Bissextile account, a man singularly instructed in all divine and human affairs, in the time of his Consul-ship, by a decree of the Senate procured that the whole Roman jurisdiction, should be measured out, by men of greatest skill, and most seen in all the attainments of Philosophy. So that Julius Caesar, and M. Antony being Consuls, the world began to be measured.

That is, from the Consulship of Caesar above mentioned, to the Consulship of Augustus the third time, and Crassus; the space of One and twenty years, five months, and eight days, all the East was surveighed by Zenodoxus.

From the Consulship likewise of Julius Caesar and M. Antony, to the Consulship of Saturnius and Cinna, the space of two and thirty years, one month, and ten days, the South was measured out by Polyclitus; so that in two and thirty years time, the whole world was surveighed, and a report of it given in unto the Senate.

Thus he: Though something obscurely in the accounts of the Consuls; as also in his silence about the West; which things I must not stand to inquire into at this time. This only we may observe, that Julius Caesar was Consul with Antony A. U. C. 710. And that the surveigh of the Roman Empire being two and thirty years in finishing, ended A. V. C. 742. that is, twelve years before the Nativity of our Savior.

Let us in the mean time guess what course was taken in this surveigh: I. It is very probable, they drew out some Geographical Tables, wherein all the Countries were delineated, and laid down before them in one view. II. That these Tables or Maps were illustrated by Commentaries, in which were set down the description of the Countries, the names of places, the account of distances, and whatever might be necessary to a complete knowlede of the whole bounds of that Empire. That some such thing was done by Augustus his own hand so far as concerned Italy, seems hinted by a passage in Pliny , Quâ in re praefari necessarium est Authorem nos Divum Augustum secuturos, descriptionem{que} ab eo factam, Italiae totius in regiones XI. In which thing, we must tell before hand, that we intend to follow Augustus, and the description he made of all Italy, dividing it into XI Countries.

And now, after this Survey of Lands and Regions, what could be wanting, to the full knowledge of the Empire, but a strict account of the people, their Patrimony and Estates? and this was Augustus his care to do.

Recepit & morum legumque regimen aeque perpetuum. &c. He took upon him the Government both of their manners and Laws, and both perpetual. By which right, though without the title of Censor, he laid a tax upon the people three times. The first and third with his Colleague, the second alone. The first, with his Colleague, M. Agrippa. The third, with his Colleague Tiberius. The second, by himself alone: and this was the Tax, our Evangelist makes mention of, in this place.

VERS. II.

NOT the first taxing under Augustus, but the first that was made under Cyrenius. For there was another taxing under him, upon the occasion of which the Sedition was raised by Judas the Gaulonite. Of this Tax of ours Dion Cassius seems to make mention, the times agreeing well enough, though the agreement in other things is more hardly reducible.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. He began a tax upon those that dwelt in Italy, and were worth two hundred Sesterces: sparing the poorer sort, and those that lived beyond the Countries of Italy, to avoid tumults.

If those that lived out of Italy were not taxed, how does this agree, with the Tax our Evangelist speaks of? unless you will distinguish. In one sense, they were not taxed, that is, as to their Estates, they were not to pay anything: but in another sense they were; that is, as to taking account of their names, that they might swear their allegiance, and subjection to the Roman Empire. As to this, let the more learned judge.

VERS. IV.

WE read in the Evangelists of two Families that were of the Stock and Line of David; and the Talmudic Authors mention a third. The Family of Jacob the Father of Joseph, the Family of Eli the Father of Mary, and the Family of Hillel, the President of the Sanhedrin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who was of the seed of David, of Shephatiah the Son Abital .

I do not say that all these met at this time in Bethlehem. It is indeed remarkit of Joseph that he was of the House of David; partly because he was to be the reputed (though he was not the real) Father of Christ; and partly also, that the occasion might be related, that brought Mary to Bethlehem, where the Messiah was to be born. But it may be considered, whether Cyrenius being now to take an estimate of the people, might not on purpose and out of policy summon together all that were of David 's Stock, from whence he might have heard the Jews Messiah was to spring, to judge whether some danger might not arise from thence.

VERS. VII.

FRom hence it appears that neither Joseph nor his Father Jacob had any House of their own here, no nor Eli neither, wherein to entertain his Daughter Mary ready to lie-in. And yet we find, that two years after the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary his Wife lived there in an hired House, till they fled into Egypt.

A certain Arabian said to a certain Jew, the Redeemer of the Jews is born; saith the Jew to him; what is his name? Menahem, saith the other. And what the name of his Father? Hezekiah. But where dwell they? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Birath Arba in Bethlehem Judah. He shall deserve many thanks, that will but tell us what this Birath Arba is. The Gloss tells us, no other than that this Birath Arba was a place in Bethlehem, which any one knows from the words themselves. But what, or what kind of place was it? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Birah indeed is a Palace, or Castle; but what should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arba be? A man had better hold his tongue than conjecture vainly and to no purpose; otherwise, I might quote that in Sotah , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which speaks concerning a promise, or a surety for the performance of the Law. But I forbear.

VERS. VIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These are the sheep of the wilderness; viz. those which go out to pasture, about the time of the Passover and are sed in the fields, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and return home upon the first rain.

Which is the first rain? It begins on the third of the month Marheshvan. The middle rain is on the seventh: The l • st is the seventeenth. So R. Meir. But R. Judah saith, on the seventh, seventeenth, and one and twentieth.

The Spring coming on, they drove their Beasts into Wildernesses, or champagne grounds, where they fed them the whole Summer, keeping watch over them night and day, that they might not be impaired, either by Thieves or ravenous Beasts. They had for this purpose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their Tower to watch in, or else 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 certain small Cottages erected for this very end, as we have observed elsewhere. Now in the month Marheshvan, which is part of our October, and part of November; the Winter coming on, they betook themselves home again with the Flocks and the Herds.

VERS. XIII.

THE Targumist upon Ezek. I. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An host of Angels from above. So in 1 Kings XIX. 11, 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An host of the Angels of the wind. An host of the Angels of commotion. An host of the Angels of fire: And after the host of the Angels of fire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the voice of the silent Singers.

VERS. XIV.

WE may very well understand this Angelic Hymn, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good will toward men, be taken for the subject, and the rest of the words, for the predicate. The good will of God toward men, is glory to God in the highest, and peace on Earth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , And, is put between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Glory and Peace, not between them and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good will.

But now this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or good will of God toward men, being so wonderfully made known in the birth of the Messiah, how highly it conduced to the glory of God, would be needless to show: and how it introduced peace on the Earth, the Apostle himself shows from the effect, Ephes. II. 14. Coloss. I. 20. and several other places.

VERS. XXI.

THE disciples of R. Simeon ben Jochai asked him, why the Law ordained Circumcision on the eighth day? To wit, lest while all others were rejoyeing, the Parents of the Infant should be sad. The Circumcision therefore is deferred, till the Woman in Child bed hath got over her uncleanness. For as it is expressed a little before, The Woman that brings forth a man-child, is prohibited her Husband the space of seven days; but on the seventh day, at the coming in of the evening, which begins the eighth day, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 she washeth herself, and is allowed to go in unto her Husband. If she came nigh him within the seven days she made him unclean. On the eighth day therefore, Joseph addresseth himself to make provision for his Wife, and to take care about the Circumcision of the Child.

VERS. XXII.

R. Asai saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Child whose Mother is unclean by Childbearing, is Circumcised the eighth day; but he whose Mother is not unclean by Child-bearing is not circumcised the eighth day.

You will ask probably what Mother that is, that is not unclean by Child-bearing. Let the Gloss upon this place make the Answer. She whose Child is cut out of her womb. As also a Gentile Woman, who is brought to bed today, and the next day becomes a Proselyte; her Child is not deferred till the eighth day, but is Circumcised straight-way. And the Rabbins a little after: One takes an handmaid big with child, and while she is with him, brings forth: her Child is Circumcised the eighth day. But if he takes a serving-maid, and with her a child newly born, that Child is Circumcised the first day.

They did not account an Heathen Woman unclean by Child-bearing, because she was not yet under the Law that concerned uncleanness. Hence on the other side, Mary was unclean at her bearing a Child, because she was under the Law: So Christ was Circumcised because born under the Law.

II. After seven days the Woman must continue for three and thirty days 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the blood of her purifying, Levite. XII. 4. where the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; in her unclean blood; far enough from the mind of Moses. And the Alexandrian M. S. much wider still: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . She shall sit thirty and ten days in an unclean garment.

Pesikta as before Col. 4. It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the blood of her purifying. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Though she issue blood like a flood, yet is she clean. Nor doth she defile anything by touching it, but what is Holy. For seven days immediately after she is brought to bed, she lies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the blood of her uncleanness; but the three and thirty days following, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the blood of her purifying.

I. This was done to the first-born; but not to the Children, that were born afterward; nor was this done to the first-born, unless 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first-born were fit for the Priest. For in Becoroth , they distinguish betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a first-born fit for inheritance, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a first-born fit for the Priest. That is, if the first-born should be any ways maimed, or defective in any of his parts, or had any kind of spot or blemish in him, this laid no bar for his inheriting, and yet made him unfit and uncapable of being consecrated to God.

II. The first born was to be redeemed immediately after the thirtieth day from his birth. Everyone is bound to redeem his first-born with five shekels, after he is thirty days old, as it is said, from a month old shalt thou redeem, Numb. XVIII. 16. Not that the price of that redemption was always paid exactly upon the thirtieth day, but that then exactly it became due. Hence in that Treatise newly quoted, If the Child die within the thirty days, and the Father hath paid the price of his redemption beforehand, the Priest must restore it: but if he die after the thirty days are past, and the Father hath not paid the price of his redemption, let him pay it. Where we find the price of redemption supposed as paid either before or after the thirty days.

III. The Women that were to be purified were placed in the East-gate of the Court, called Nicanor 's Gate, and were sprinkled with blood .

There stood Mary for her purifying: and there probably Christ was placed, that he might be presented before the Lord, presented to the Priest.

VERS. XXIV.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Turtles were older, and of a larger size: Pigeons, less, and younger. For it is said of Pigeons, two young Pigeons, but not so of Turtles.

This was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the offering of the poor; which if a rich man offered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he did not do his duty. And when the Doctors speak so often of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an offering rising or falling, it hath respect to this. For the offering of the richer sort was a Lamb; but if his hand could not reach to a Lamb, then he offered a pair of Turtles, or Pigeons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he was poor, he offered the tenth part of an Ephah, therefore is the oblation said to be rising or falling .

King Agrippa came one day to offer a thousand burnt offerings, but a certain poor man prevented him with two Turtle Doves. So also, when one would have offered a Bullock, there was a poor man prevented him with an handful of Herbs. We have the story at large in Vaji • ra rabb. .

II. Of the two Turtle Doves, or young Pigeons, one was to be offered as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering. But as to the particular appointment of the one for the burnt-offering, the other for the sin-offering, that is which should be which, it is disputed among the Doctors, whether it lay in the breast of him or her that offered it or the Priests to determine it .

By the way we may observe, that the blessed Virgin offers a sin-offering for herself. Now, what the meaning and design of a sin-offering was, is evident from Levite. IV. & V.

VERS. XXV.

I. SImeon the just, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of whom the Jewish Histories tell so many and great things, hath nothing to do here. For as it is certain that Simeon died long before: So as it very uncertain whether he deserved the title of just so well as our Simeon did. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He was called just both for his Piety toward God, and his Charity toward his Countrymen. Grant he was so, yet is it a far greater testimony that is given of our Simeon.

II. Rabban Simeon, the Son of Hillel, was alive, and at Jerusalem, in those very times wherein our Evangelist wrote, his Father Hillel also, still living: whom the Son suceeded, upon the decease of the Father, as President of the Council. But as to him, there is nothing famous concerning him, amongst Jewish Authors, but his bare name. Rabban Simeon the Son of old Hillel, a Prince of Israel, as his Father had been. As you may see in cap. 1. Schabb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There is no mention of him in Mishneh. He was therefore no Father of Traditions, neither were there any things recited from him in the Mishneh, Which indeed was very extraordinary: but how it should come to pass I cannot tell. Whether he had a sounder apprehension of things, or was not well seen in Traditions, or was this very Simeon, the Evangelist mentions, and so looked higher than the mere Traditions of men. This is all the hindrance, that Rabban Simeon lived a great while after the birth of our Savior, and had a Son Gamaliel, whom he bred up a Pharisee.

That is, believing the consolation of Israel was nigh at hand. The whole Nation waited for the consolation of Israel, insomuch that there was nothing more common with them than to swear by the desire they had of seeing it.

R. Judah ben Tabbai said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So let me see the consolation [of Israel] if I have not put to death a false witness. Simeon ben Shetah saith to him, so let me see the consolation, if thou hast not shed innocent blood.

R. Eliezer ben Zadok said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So let me see the consolation, if I did not see her gleaning Barley under the Horses heels.

R. Simeon ben Shetah said, Let me see the consolation, I saw one pursuing another with a drawn sword.

Those which desire the years of consolation that are to come.

VERS. XXV.

THY soul, i. e. thy life. It is a prediction, that the Blessed Virgin should suffer Martyrdom. This Child of thine shall be set for a sign which shall be spoken against, neither shalt thou escape in the contradiction that shall be given him, for thou shalt die by the sword. Epiphanius gives some countenance to this exposition.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Whether the Holy Virgin died and was buried, her death was crowned with infinite honor, she made a most chaste end, and the crown of her virginity was given her: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or whether she was put to death, (as it is written, a sword shall pass through thine own soul) she is possessed of glory and a crown amongst the Martyrs.

VERS. XXXVI.

THere were therefore Prophets at this time among the people. It is not to be denied that at this time there were; that is, when the morning of the Gospel began to dawn; but for four hundred years past, there had been one that had deserved that name, however the Jews vainly enough had honored the memories of some with that title; which we shall not meddle with at this present. But was this Anna accounted a Prophetess by the Jews? if so, whence that Proverbial expression out of Galilee ariseth no Prophet, Joh. VII. 52. She was certainly a Galilean, and for that very reason probably, it is here remarkit, that she was of the Tribe of Aser.

What think we of that passage in Vajierah rabba, fol. 174. 4. and Bemidbar rabb. fol. 250. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The King Messiah, who is placed on the North, shall come and build the House of the Sanctuary, which is placed on the South. Doth not this favor something of Christ's coming out of Galilee?

VERS. XXXVII.

I. IT may be doubted whether any Women ever discharged any office in the Temple▪ Some think they did. But that which they allege out of 1 Sam. II. 22. concerning the Women that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, is quite another thing from any public ministering, if we will admit the Targumist and the Rabbins for Expositors. So Exod. XXVIII. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Women assembling by troops at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. The Targumists both here and in the place newly quoted have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Women that came to pray. The Greek Interpreters read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And by the same boldness or blindness, wholly left out that clause 1 Sam. II. 22. And how they lay with the Women that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

It is apparent that Women were wont to come from other parts to the Tabernacle for devotion's sake, not to perform any ministry. So this Anna, by birth of the Tribe of Aser, had changed her native soil, and fixed her abode at Jerusalem, partly, for devotion, that she might be the more at leisure for praying in the Temple, and partly as a Prophetess, that she might utter her Prophesies in the great Metropolis.

II. She departed not from the Temple, that is, not in the stated times of Prayer: according as it is commanded Aaron and his Sons, Levite. X. 7. Ye shall not go out from the door of the Tabernacle. Where Siphra, fol. 24. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not in the time of their ministry.

VERS. XLII.

LET a man deal gently with his Son, till he come to be twelve years old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but from that time, let him descend with him into his way of living. That is, let him diligently, and with severity (if need be) keep him close to that way, rule, or art, by which he may get his living.

At twelve years old they were wont to inure Children to fasting, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from time to time, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from hour to hour, that they might be accustomed to it, and so be capable of fasting upon the day of atonement.

Christ being now twelve years old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 applies himself to his proper work, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be about his Fathers business.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Solomon when twelve years old, judged between the two Women.

R. Chama saith, that Moses when he was twelve years old, was taken from his Fathers House.

VERS. XLIII.

HEre ariseth a question, whether it was lawful to depart from Jerusalem, before the seven days were ended. If not, why did Peter and Cleophas go away on the third day? if they might, how then is that precept to be understood, about eating the unleavened bread throughout the whole seven days.

I. It is controverted amongst the Doctors about that passage, Deut. XVI. 6, 7. thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at the even, at the going down of the Son,—and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go into thy tents. Whether it be lawful, after they had eaten the Lamb, to go everyone to his own House. This is denied, and that not without reason. For as it is in the Gloss , On the day of the Feast (that is, the first day of the seven) the sabbatical limits forbad it. For on the Feast day, no man ought to exceed the bounds of a Sabbath days journey. That therefore (say they) that is said, thou shalt go into thy tents, is to be thus understood, thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem; but, by no means, into thine own house.

II. Was it lawful then, to return home on the second day of the Feast? No it was not. For on that day was the general appearance in the Court, and presentment of their offerings. And this seems hinted by R. Elhanani in another Gloss upon the place newly cited. There were two reasons (saith he) of their lodging in Jerusalem, the one because of the Feast day, the other because of the